Saving Private Ryan

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 09:16 PM

I thought it a clever title for a thread about House Speaker Paul Ryan and his troubles...

That thread would be "Saving Ryan's Privates".

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: meself
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 06:28 PM

Robo: I think some of these threads get re-awakened by spammers. I don't see any harm in it, myself.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: meself
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 06:25 PM

"Based on a true story" - they only changed the little detail that there does not seem to have been any mission to 'save' one brother because the others were thought to have been killed. Other than that, very close to the true story ... !

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 02:36 PM

What is gained by letting a guest re-open a long dormant thread (As much as I was refreshed by my post of 16 years ago)? Can't we put these to bed and let them open a "Part II".

What to people get out of this practice, which seems to have started up lately?

Now that the thread's open, I'll recommend "Battleground" from 1949 which I believe had a cast including some soldiers who fought in the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge. It has some good drill work at the opening and includes some good period dialogue with a sense of the look and humor of the times.
Likewise "30 Seconds Over Tokyo" which was produced before the end of WWII with excellent performances based on the real participants of the Doolittle Raid.
And of course, "Best Years of Our Lives" which likewise bears the stamp of reality of the times.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Jeri
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 02:22 PM

Based on a true story.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: meself
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 01:46 PM

Wasn't the whole premise of SPR just a little far-fetched ... ?

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: gillymor
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 12:35 PM

If Speaker Ryan were drowning I'd throw him a copy of Atlas Shrugged and then sail off.

I saw "Pride of the Marines" (made in 1945, I think) the other day which starred John Garfield. The film was mainly concerned with Garfield's character after he came home from Gualdalcanal blinded by an enemy hand grenade. In the movie's one brief combat scene Japanese were overrunning Garfield's machine gun nest at night and he and his crew held them off. It was one of the most terrifying moments I've seen in any kind of movie.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 11:51 AM

When I first saw this thread today, I thought it a clever title for a thread about House Speaker Paul Ryan and his troubles....

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 09:36 AM

The movie started falling apart after the superb opening scenes...

Band of Brothers was far more consistently superior.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 09:29 AM

I understand it's a very good film, except for one criticism by Colin Powell and backed up by my own experience:

Apparently there is a scene in a church where the heroes are talking. Powell said that this was wrong -- real combat troops would have been sleeping during such a break.

As for attacking a main street, no one would march up in column as if they were on parade. Small groups, perhaps no more than squad size, would be sent in to clear each building. It is quite possible that tanks would have come along to provide both mobile cover for the Infantry and immediate artillery support. A high explosive round makes faster work of a sniper in, say, a church steeple than does a rifleman on the ground. (At least during WW2. Today a LAW or a 40mm grenade from a grenade launcher might be used. A bazooka, or 2.6 inch rocket launcher, or a panzerfaust might have been used in 1944, assuming the troops had one.)

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 08:39 AM

"Private Ryan's Savings" wouldn't have been a very interesting film...


Scene 1: Beach landing shells bursting and bullets mowing down all around
Man in suit with Brief case appears through the blood mist and smoke..

" good morning, I am an independent financial consultant, can I interest you in........."

The End

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: GUEST,Desi C
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 07:04 AM

I sometimes can't help wishing they hadn't bothered saving Ryan, just a thought

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: meself
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 09:50 PM

Well - that answers my question, anyway!

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 08:49 PM

Because in 2001, there was no above/below the line.

What I can't figure out is why the fuck pauperback refreshed this thread.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: meself
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 07:28 PM

My question: why isn't this below the line?

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: GUEST,pauperback
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 07:18 PM

From: catspaw49 
Date: 22 Dec 01 - 04:27 PM - "Spielberg remains a genius"

If your looking in, catspaw49, the movie The Longest Day is far better without all that noise & gore.

I imagine many movie-goers in '62 appreciated that particular lack of realism since most WWII Veterans wouldn't even speak about what they'd seen anyway so why on Earth would they want to see a bloody Hollywood depiction of the D-Day slaughter?

Oh & BTW ~~ the big question: whats D-day stand for? Doomsday?

My thinking...after the Norman Invasion the Domesday Book spelt death for Anglo Saxtons as the Normandy Invasion (D-Day) spelt death for Germans.

Full circle.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: leprechaun
Date: 27 Dec 01 - 11:10 PM

1 pound ground venison, run over by somebody's car in another thread (or elk or beef or turkey or manatee) 1 package NESCO Original beef jerky spice, with cure 1 habanero pepper, minced (seeds and stem removed)

Mix well, wearing rubber gloves. Squeeze out in flat strips on dehydrator tray. Dehyrate at highest temperature for one hour. Then turn the heat down to 130 degrees. Continue to dehydrate until almost dry, but still supple and leathery. Watch them disappear!

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: leprechaun
Date: 27 Dec 01 - 04:26 AM

Well if you get too much habanero, it will choke you up. That's why I've tried to tone it down on my last few batches. Not that I mind sharing, Amos, it's just not for everybody. I'd be so embarrassed if I gave Little Hawk a piece of habanero jerky and he went into anaphylactic shock. That would be a bad thing.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: GUEST,chanteyranger
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 11:49 PM

Hi, Walrus -

I remember The Victors. That's for sure. That's for dang sure! :-)

-chanteyranger

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: GUEST,Desdemona
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 07:32 PM

I think the above comment about the "cliches of war as much as those of war movies" is very apt; I'd guess (not having been through war, but having had 3 childbirths, which was an awful lot like Omaha Beach, the way *I* understand it ;~) !) that there are certain immutable truths and unvarying elements of the experience that are the same for troops in Afghanistan today as they were for the Greeks & Romans.

I've always thought the St Crispin's Day speech in "Henry V" says it best:

This day is called the feast of Crispian: He that outlives this day, and comes safe home, Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named, And rouse him at the name of Crispian. He that shall live this day, and see old age, Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours, And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:' Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars. And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.' Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember with advantages What feats he did that day: then shall our names. Familiar in his mouth as household words Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter, Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester, Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd. This story shall the good man teach his son; And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by, From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remember'd; We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition: And gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Chokes me up every time.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 07:13 PM

Considering such things as the Vietnam 'experience' & other conflicts, its surprising how little Hollywood seems to know, or CARE, about what war is really like. I'm suprised more people dont see that kind of laxity as an insult

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: The Walrus
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 08:16 PM

I must say that to an extent I was disappointed with SPR. I feel that in the D-Day scenes the idea of a "judder" lens was fine (to give the "hand held" appearance)was fine for the movement shots, but theyt left it on when the cameraman had "gone to ground" with the assault troops, when, with a real hand held camera, it would have been braced (take a look at some of the real D-Day footage)- it just gave me a headache. After the D-Day scenes the film deteriorated into a bog-standard patrol movie, as far as I recall (I do remember seeing one or two scenes and thinking "Oh for a mortar"). As for the final battle, I agree with others, no way would armour run straight into a "hot" built up area without infantry clearing the way and the infantry probably wouldn't have wanted to go in without some kind of softening up with shell fire. All in all I'd say Go fo Band of Brothers, far superior in all aspects (including IMHO the acting).

To keep a musical content (and as others have already branched away from SPR). Am I the only one here who remembers the execution scene from "The Victors"? It absolutely ruined the song "Have Youself A Merry Little Christmas" for me, ever since I first saw the film, the two have been associated, I can't hear the song without being reminded of the film (any suggestions?)

Regards

Walrus

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Devilmaster
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 10:25 AM

Just a thought on the final battle scene in SPR.....

No experienced German army would march a column of infantry and armour down a tight mainstreet like that. And since this is D-day plus 5 (or so) the German army has not really been decimated yet by Allied forces.

The armour would have stayed outside the city, and with mortars, shelled the city constantly. Ensure sniper perches, (like the steeple) were destroyed, Only then, would infantry enter the city, not as a long column, but in small platoons of a few men each, clearing house to house. Not running up main street.

And at the time of this happening, this group of Germans would be experienced, battle hardened veterans of the invasions of western Europe. (well, not all of them, but the senior officers and non-comms would definitely be)

But i guess that would make for a boring ending.

Steve

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Melani
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 08:17 PM

Thanks for reminding me of "Das Boot," Robomatic. By the time we got done with that one, I felt like I'd been in the submarine for three hours with them.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 07:33 PM

I share Big Red's feeling that it's hard for people in our era to imagine what it was like to be a '40's' person. Most American war movies from the 70's on have entirely failed to get a grip on it. Most recent example 'Pearl Harbor'.

I saw SPR and was very impressed with its aura of realism, in fact I think they mostly 'got' it. What didn't work for me at the end was the aged man weeping over the grave and asking if he did the right thing, was he a good person. I think that was the one sensitive-new-age blandishment to the whole deal, but that's just MHO.

I saw Thin Red Line and was impressed by the sense of hopelessness of being pinned down, and thought it well acted, but it had less of a point than SPR (which I think WAS its point) and I was not too sympathetic to the scenes of the Japanese being brutally overrun at the end. I don't think Americans behaved near as bad as the Japanese themelves did when they were victorious.

Spielberg is a great, conscientious director, he likes to have a moral point in his work, and I don't have a quarrel with that, I'm an American viewer and I like to have a feeling of morality being served, and I'm well aware that one of the points of good war movies is that there is no such thing. I like those movies, too, La Grand Illusion for one. Spielberg is sometimes rather obviously manipulative, such as in 'Empire of the Sun' which I enjoyed but took as more of a man-child point of view cum fractured fairytale. (From a book by a Brit).

Spielberg and Hanks have produced a truly great mini-series 'Band of Brothers' which is Ryan-like in its realism without the broadly painted message. Get it and see it. The book ain't bad either.

I didn't go to see U-571 because of its tactless re-treatment of history. It's not a Yank vs. Brit sort of thing, because British movies have done the same thing to Yanks (e.g. 'Breaking the Sound Barrier'). I just like directors and producers who respect history a little bit more. I rented it later and it is a good 'yarn' but not a great one. Get the German version of 'Das Boot' for an excellent underwater Teutonic viewpoint, supposedly based on real events as witnessed by the author.

I will not see 'Pearl Harbor' which is a case of 90's kids transplanted to a special effects theme park. That's more of a politically correctified video game than anything else.

I did see Enemy at the Gates and liked it, the first fifteen minutes are the main reason to see it. It does not hold up with Ryan or Thin Red Line because:

1) Stupid love story tacked into the mix. 2) Historical context is weak. The 'duel' though cool to watch, may have been totally made up in the Soviet press (although I'm told there is a museum exhibit in Russia showing the German's rifle, with a bullet hole through the sight).

I would almost kill for habanero jerky. To make the world safe for humanity, how about posting a recipe? Other movies: Loved Full Metal Jacket.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: GUEST,John Gray / Australia
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 04:57 PM

A couple of observations on SPR.
1. By June 44 a lot of the German units were not rock solid with experience as they had been a couple of years prior. Five years of war and some big defeats had knocked them around quite a bit. Recruits were coming into the ranks that, in 39, would have been discarded.
2. Armour is at a distinct disadvantage in the narrow confines of village streets. Experienced soldiers with the right weapons can exact a heavy toll on armour, way out of proportion to their numbers.
Spielberg got it mostly right for me, especially the background battlefield noise which Hollywood had never been able to get right. The only thing missing was that particular smell that emanates from the battlefield but is impossible to duplicate in a picture theatre.

JG/FME.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Big Red
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 04:04 PM

The real problem with "Ryan" is that it casts 90's characters in a 40's war. It is hard to understand today the "mind set" of the soldiers of that time.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 03:44 PM

I hadn't seen that one, Melani, but that rake Lancaster sure got around. First he goes after some officer's wife in From Beer To Fraternity, and now he's making it with a Count's wife.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Melani
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 03:10 PM

I have a feeling all you war movie buffs are going to jump on me with both feet for this, but on the other end of the realism scale, I've always sorta liked "Castle Keep." I strolled into the theater to see it in the early '70s (I forget the exact year), knowing nothing about it, expecting to see your standard war movie, and instead got the most incredible surreal painting of a war movie. I saw it only twice, and that many years ago, but I still remember many, many details, which for me is unusual. Forget the weird side-plot about Burt Lancaster and the Count's wife. The theme of war destroying beauty was really overwhelming.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: GUEST,Sledge
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 11:35 AM

A superb piece of cinema that gets its point over all too well whatever the inspiration.

Nitpick mode on, The SS formation that they describe them as being, the 2nd SS Das Reich, did not appear on the invasion front for about a week, they were busy murdering French Civilians at Ouradour sur Glane and Tulle while en-route to the battle front. The German tiger formations were also slow in arriving in the battle area and when they did arrive were used against the British and Canadians for the first month or so. The first serious armour battles were also in the British Canadian area but against the Wermacht 21st Panzer division, nitpick mode off.

Cheers

Sledge (who IS trying to get out more)

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 08:44 AM

Agreed. The action scenes were very well done. It's possible that a German column could have been mauled like that (when assaulting Ryan's platoon)...but not terribly likely. They were the most experienced and canny army in the field in 1944, but hamstrung by Allied air supremacy most of the time. It was the airplanes that massacred them, again and again, whenever they showed themselves or tried to move along the roads.

Then too, they were outnumbered in tanks by about 50 to 1 (or worse than that) on the western front in 44-45, so the fact that their tanks were generally more formidable was not enough to save them from being overwhelmed.

The D-Day scene was superb.

- LH

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 04:16 AM

I wonder if anyone else here has had the same experience I have of liking Saving Private Ryan less on second viewing, but getting more out of The Thin Red line on repeat viewings. The opening D-Day scene, though, is an incredible achievement, in that many D-Day survivors interviewed have said that that scene comes much closer than any other war movie to showing what it was really like. Some have said that scene shows exactly what it was like.

The final battle in Ryan has one scene which looks almost identical to documentary footage of the Warsaw ghetto uprising. It is when a molotov cocktail is thrown from a window into a German truck carrying soldiers. The angle, results, and the "look" of that particular shot, except for being in color, is otherwise (almost) identical. I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong in doing that, in fact if that documentary footage was what inspired Spielberg to shoot that scene, that's damn good filmmaking.

On the question of whether Tom Hanks's platoon could have in real life held off the Germans in the final battle sequence, who knows, but his men were using some unorthodox guerrilla-like tactics, (for lack of adequate firepower and numbers of men) which could have in real life created chaos and exacted heavy casualties among enemy troops.

Whatever one thinks about S.P. Ryan, it has definitely set a higher standard for realism in war pictures for its opening battle sequence.

chanteyranger

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 03:44 AM

Amos, I believe leprechaun was talking about LH's dislike of the twitching Spanish dancer...leaving more twitches to be gobbled up by leprechaun. I don't think it had to do with getting shot to pieces.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 11:39 PM

WHaddya mean, leprechaun?

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: leprechaun
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 10:58 PM

More for me.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 08:57 PM

The incidents as such aren't the cliches, they are what happens in real life. The cliche lies on the way they are assembled to tell a story.

What is phoney in pretty well all war movies is the way they present the whole picture in a comprehensible way that just isn't how combatants experience it. I've never been in war combat, but talking to people who have, it seems basically combat is waiting around doing nothing and then there's a lot of shooting, and people getting shot to pieces, and then it stops - "and what the hell happened just then?" That's assuming you haven't been shot to pieces.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 08:12 PM

"Enemy at the Gates" is excellent Jack, I agree. A lot of the newer war movies have taken some of the detail and content up a notch and I think that's been the case with most of the ones mentioned here, whether about Vietnam or WWII. Spielberg's attention to small things like the sound of the ejected clip is a nice touch.

All of them are a long way past "Sands of Iwo Jima." Enjoyable perhaps, but complete hocum. It does however follow the same text that Sergio feels Spielberg stole. That was my original point......the basic scenario is always pretty much the same. It's still a movie, still Hollywood, and still has to sell tickets.

We had a talk here awhile back about "U-571" which is historically absolute crap. I finally saw it and if you forget history, it's an enjoyable action yarn and not too bad, like "Sands of Iwo Jima." The better ones though spend a little time on detail and even though fictional in some cases, pay a bit more attention to history.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 07:31 PM

Jack - I agree. They would have made gravy of Ryan's platoon. When you've got a couple of Tiger tanks and an assortment of smaller support vehicles, you don't parade down Main Street past ideal ambush spots. You send in the infantry first, find out where the enemy is, and blow him to smithereens from a safe distance, with the infantry always leading in the front as skirmishers, and clearing each building as they go. You've got a hot machine gunner/sniper in a tower? Everybody hunkers down, takes cover, and one of the tanks blows the tower to eternity (which did happen eventually...but not as soon as it might have in real life).

The one thing that could have saved Ryan's bacon (and did in the movie) was Allied aircraft. That part was entirely believable, but they waited until the last possible moment to do it...this being a movie. No one ever gets saved until the very last second in Hollywood.

I have yet to see Enemy At The Gates. And I've never eaten habanero jerky. Sounds gross to me! :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 02:08 PM

Sergio Alguim

I think what you saw in Private Ryan were the cloches of war as much as war movies. Quarreling in the trenches, Tired veterans, canny snipers, Big battles, actually Private Ryan ended with a very small battle. I think the germans just walked in there because they didn't expect a handful of lightly armed men to put up such a fight. I suspect in real life that many german veterans with tanks and the other weapons they had would have made gravey of Ryan's Platoon. But it was not real life it was an american movie.

Did anyone else think that Enemy At The Gates was a much better movie? The scene crossing the Volga gave me chills.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 10:52 AM

As a female American baby boomer, I have only seen what the media offers as what "war" is (both the documentary stuff on Viet Nam and the Gulf War as they happened, the news reels and documentaries on WWII, and the fiction films from Hollywood).

I wouldn't know, but I would assume that maybe the fact that there is a common theme is because there is a common experience of war.

Ask a few veterans for *their* stories if you want to test the theory.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: leprechaun
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 02:38 AM

Well the thing is, if you take the seeds out, then grind the peppers up real well, you can mix it in and get that real addictive habanero flavor without too much heat. For most people that is. I myself have fried my tastebuds to the point the heat doesn't bother me all that much. But most people don't like too much capsicum. It's a good idea to wear rubber gloves. Don't make the mistake of handling those habaneros and then going to the bathroom. Wooo doggies!

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: DougR
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 12:42 AM

I, like Spaw, fail to see the point. If you seek a comment, here's mine. So? I'll put it another way: duh.

DougR

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 22 Dec 01 - 06:42 PM

Habanero jerky...sounds like a Spanish dancer with a tic.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Devilmaster
Date: 22 Dec 01 - 06:40 PM

mmmmmmm.........habanero jerky......... pass it over.......

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: leprechaun
Date: 22 Dec 01 - 06:25 PM

Not really complaining. Just confessing. In case some of you don't get your habanero jerky this year, you'll know why.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 01 - 05:31 PM

I dont see why youre complaining on THIS site, 'Sergio Alguim'

makes no sense to me

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: leprechaun
Date: 22 Dec 01 - 05:30 PM

Well what bugs me is when you get a whole batch of habanero flavored venison jerky and it's all packaged up for Christmas baskets, but you just keep opening them up and eating them before you get a chance to deliver them to all your relatives. I know I'll pay for this later, but I just can't help myself.

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 22 Dec 01 - 05:24 PM

I hear that Shaving Ryans Privates is a better movie...

;-)

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 22 Dec 01 - 05:02 PM

It's not surprising that Spielberg would include specific references to other movies...that's done all the time. In fact, lots of film buffs play a game of spot the reference. In a serious film like this, it's generally taken as a nod of respect.

On a different level, I saw "Chicken Run" with my daughter, and it was fun to see all the references to the old POW films, especially "The Great Escape" -- including the scene with Steve McQueen in the "cooler", throwing the ball against the wall.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: Saving Private Ryan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Dec 01 - 04:27 PM

Well, most people who go through a war are filled with sorrow at what has happened, so it's an appropriate theme.

The one thing I thought was unrealistic in SPR was the very poor battlefield tactics of the German soldiers, repeatedly exposing themselves to unnecessary losses. This was not typical of the Germans, to say the least. Ask those who fought against them.

- LH